Teach "Facts" or "Analysis"?

Both you have to have some knowledge of some basic facts to make all analysis in a timely manner. you can't have them looking up all the facts.

teach history?.......... Remember that the people who write history are the victors. And after awhile, history is rewriten to be politically correct, at least in this country. (U.S.)

I understand Howard Zinn's book, "A People's History of the United States," helps balance the view of our history. Many called him a "radical." But he may be a "good" radical.

I agree that the internet is not the easiest place to find the facts.

What it do see is that too much dependance of the computer. To do the analysis for them. They no longer have to think just enter the facts.

"Nonsense, says the other side. Facts can be readily acquired quickly and easily on the Internet."

And so can myths.

I have to stop looking at these blogs, the writers appear to be lacking in the analysis department, this is a blatant example of a false choice, each is useless without the other .

You are right. Different historians can write history in different ways to suit a race or community or religous group and ignite racial tension and even genocide while UN say it is internal affair.

I think teachers should be capable enough to construct their own curriculum addressing how "the known facts" came to be. This requires that they be well versed in critical thinking in order to do a review of the primary research and be capable of knowing how to analyze any evidence they might encounter.

What is far more common is for teachers to be instructed to follow a curriculum that is a byproduct of conflicting interest and ulterior motivations that seek to gain political power by reframing the interpretation of history towards their own agenda. Unfortunately, many teachers are not skilled in using the formal methodologies of critical thinking in order to interpret the information they themselves are presented with. Not only that, but the concept of objectivity has been purposefully attacked by claiming everything is subjective and relative. Since human perspectives are bound to a physical universe (with the aid of a human brain and all its component parts that make up the whole), existing in particular place (governed by a prevailing government and cultural perspective, let alone all the physical attributes of that space) and at a particular time (whose measurement is linear), interpretation of the facts, while not as concrete as the groups that champions them would have you believe, are also not as subjective and relative in perspective as the groups trying to influence your interpretation of the evidence by reframing it towards their perspective. In essence, the facts do not change, only our understanding of them deepens as our ability of comprehend them increases.

Even problems between neighbouring countries(Cambodia/Thailand) can prop up unless UN appoints a panel of experts from various parts of the world to write history of different countries with archeological evidence as proof.

I think teachers should be capable enough to construct their own curriculum addressing how "the known facts" came to be.

That would be bad, Teachers are not god they are human, who would say that how they present it would have a slant on it. Because it does now.

We go to school to learn how to learn, an ability that we need for the rest of our lives. That entails learning the facts and analysing them so as to formulate the quest for new facts, etc. etc.

History is very important, remember, "A nation that has forgotten it's past can have no future", I say no more!!!

Xanasax

I would like to add that Teachers are not always allowed to teach what the facts are nor can they always direct students where to go for the answer. What is being taught in schools today is mandated by the Federal and State Governments so if you want to keep your job, just do what your told. American students in science, especially the medical field, no longer look at tissues using a microscope rather they are just given a book of pictures. What we need is more hands on training on how to do research properly and to always question what the results we obtain from our experiments mean. The Internet is a usefull tool but if you are looking for an answer, discuss your questions with people, like those who are constant contributors to this blog, who have faced similar problems in the past. I think this particular blog is one of the most useful things to come along in the past twenty years. Frankly, I am impressed with how many people there are in this world that really know what in the heck they are talking about. Thanks one and all.

...and the problem with teaching history is what? Heck, why teach engineering...all the equations are on the web...the person can probably figure out how to apply them. Are we really afraid of giving children TOO MUCH information from which to draw conclusions? Should they not be given a base of contexts to draw from to allow them to make their own decisions? It is true that history is, usually, written by the victors. Does that automatically make it invalid? Unless the victors kill off every last of the vanquished, alternate versions will remain. to be judged by future "students". For the life of me I can't figure out why it so essential to not make children remember/memorize anything. They have so many more pressing duties I expect, video games & facebook come to mind. But if you don't know anything...how will you know where to look?

look at education as a tool. And the tool is only as good as the person who knows how to use it.

Why does education have to be an either/or scenario? I believe both facts and analysis are important. I believe it's difficult to do proper analysis without a good foundation in facts and while knowing a lot of facts can impress your friends and maybe allow you to do well on Jeopardy, if you are not able to use the facts you know effectively, what real value does that get you?

IMHO, it's important to stress learning facts for little learners (children) as the fact based they learn will give them a good foundation for the rest of their education.

Facts? And how does one determine historical facts? Seems like this is done (at least in the modern era) by historians... using quite a bit of analysis. And even then, the facts may be disputed. So, now, as an intelligent seeker of facts, you must read experts opinions (and supporting evidence) to see if you agree with either side. And if it happens to be a "fact" that is hotly debated among historians, it is still not a "fact."

From that perspective, I think you teach "supposed" facts; i.e., include controversial "facts" as the very example of why analysis is needed. Analytical thinking is what education should really be about. HOW to discern what is what.

In any argument the facts will necessarily be different depending on whose view you wish to believe. This is what judicial court cases are about. Finding "facts," in a human event. History is very similar. Written records by the players of history are very important. They don't guarantee that the ultimate truth will be discovered, but without them, it may be well nigh impossible. That is why, Executive Order 13233 was almost an evil doer's act. The best democracy is one where it's citizens can obtain information (maybe even facts!) about their leaders and their actions while in government. And when we speak of "history," a large portion of it is the action of governmental leaders while they are in office -- be they civilian or military.

I do not dispute the need to teach analytical thinking.

But long before that children need to know that 1+1=2 and 4x5=20 as well as that when the letters 'r', 'u' and 'n' are put together in that order, they create the word 'run' which means 'to go quickly by moving the legs more rapidly than at a walk and in such a manner that for an instant in each step all or both feet are off the ground', as well as how to spell and define hundreds of other words.

History is hearsay. Knowledge in the corner stone of all inovations. Logic with analysis leads to all discoveries. Kids should be taught more logic and analysis. I agree with you.